|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 21:58:17 GMT -5
You can create rain If you want to  . Just mental work is needed. I'm still waiting for you to manifest the brick of solid gold on my desk, but you selfishly refuse to do so. Yeah, I remember that one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 22:15:19 GMT -5
.... I don't really know what 'conditioned' means here. Conditioning usually refers to something learned, like habitual modes of behavior or thinking that we acquire over time via socialization, and that's not set in stone, that can be changed or undone anytime. And if that's what you mean, then I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you here. If by conditioning you should refer to something more static and fundamental, like a specific predisposition or bent of mind or personality type, body type etc. that we have more or less from birth then I think most can agree with you there as well. Even if by conditioning you should mean something like fate, or a mission or a specific purpose in life, depending on how specific you see it, I'd even agree with you here. So what does 'conditioning' mean? I tend to use 'conditioned' quite broadly, so ultimately it would encompass all of the above. Basically, I use it in relation to the manifest as opposed to the unmanifest. The unmanifest being pure undifferentiated Awareness/Source, so ineffable. Whereas the manifest includes; the grossly manifest, i.e. matter, the subtley manifest, i.e. mind, and even the finer mind, i.e kamma :- particularly subtle energetic patterns which transcend lifetimes. All of which can be considered as merely different forms of consciousness. *Although what's difficult here is for me to decide [if, or] where to delineate between Consciousness and consciousness in all this, as I tend to distinguish Consciousness from Awareness in much the same way I would distinguish God from Godhead.* Anyway, for me, 'the conditioned' is synonymous with appearance, that is to say, ultimately empty of inherent and abiding existence. So like a house of cards, yet not nothingness. Essenceless, yet apparent. It also means that ultimately it's also synonymous with God, but not the Godhead ... To give another example of how broadly I use the phrase, I'd say that evolution [by natural selection] is a prime example of 'the conditioned/conditioning' in action. And that some of the other examples you gave, such as " habitual modes of behavior or thinking that we acquire over time via socialization" could be considered as sub-sets of that. Along with social memes, etc, which follow a similar principle. There's also an interplay between individuated and collective aspects of it. In Buddhism they talk about both individuated and collective kamma, which I guess should ultimately be considered as part of the same continuum. Accordingly, "specific predisposition or bent of mind or personality type, body type etc." ... even, "fate, or a mission or a specific purpose in life.", would all follow suit. No doubt 'the conditioned' can be envisaged as essentially deep-rooted patterning. Perhaps literally the order from disorder that makes mundane life even possible, or at least anything intelligible. It's not a problem to use it context specifically either, as you have done. Pavlov's dog, whatever. But I think it's worth considering just how deep any notion of 'conditioned' ultimately runs. Just rambling.  We may disagree on what 'empty' means. Ultimately, this would be a discussion about thingness vs. suchness. Emptiness seen from the personal perspective (in the thingness sense) and emptiness seen from the impersonal perspective (in the suchness sense) are quite different. People often conflate these two. And then people start suffering from a dissociative personality disorder. They tell you with a straight face that they cannot know if you are a perceiver but can't help but treat you as one (and everyone else, too) at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 22:18:58 GMT -5
If so, you don't believe the fact that we are all one consciousness? If we are all one consciousness, then how can individual create the reality?
how come there is a co-creation if we are all one consciousness?
See, this is why I'm inclined to want to make the delineation referred to in my previous post. I would say that we are all one Consciousness, but not one consciousness. Consciousness is collective, but consciousness is individuated. I feel that I can say we're not one consciousness without violating the principle that everything moves as One. 'Everything moves as one' does not necessarily point to oneness. It could as well just point to interconnectedness (i.e. the intellects understanding of oneness). So better not use that phrase randomly. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 22:27:31 GMT -5
Deleted - forum not working! Is there Gremlins today? my post went all cattywampus, strange font and missing chunks out. One of my posts is also gone (and one of Gopal's). Maybe the forum is glitchy, because I don't think anything was said that was inappropriate. Just for the record, I didn't delete anything. In fact, when I logged in yesterday, I didn't even have a delete button! It's definitely an issue with the proboards forum software. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 22:38:15 GMT -5
Well, that's funny, Gopal. Isn't everyone 'stamped' a certain way, according to you? And if Lolly is stamped that way, what else could he possibly do? callin' out the kid with his own named thread. my my. I understand raji's "stamping" notion to mean, essentially, deep conditioning. Andy points out that you know the difference between clean and dirty water. Every human being is "stamped" to instinctively know the difference between clean and dirty water, and, as an ex-secular-humanist, I understand this in terms of genetics. In terms of people who move in and out of your life by loa, I understand that "stamping" in terms of what I've learned of the Buddhist notion of "dependent origination". My ex-secular-humanist perspective on this is one word: "culture", but, individualized, as in, the unique cultural experience of the person. There is a pretty deep insight gopal expresses with these notions, what E' used to refer to as "the power of futility". No comment on the "solipsism" thread of the ongoing dialog.  You may not remember this, but it's not his first special thread: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5420/believe-objective-outer-world-existsIf he didn't copy the stamping term from somewhere else, then I'd go with predispostion. That should cover it all, especially since Gopal prefers to think in terms of predetermination, i.e. things and events already being decided in their course before they even started. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 22:52:52 GMT -5
From a purely intellectual or philosophical perspective, Gopal is correct, you cannot know. You can only assume. yes gopal is correct. But in practical terms I act as though there are independently thinking conscious others. I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow but it's still an assumption. We don't go about our daily lives philosophically. Gopal is only correct if the intellect is our frame of reference, the window or filter thru which we perceive the world (relative context). Here he will get an A for his presentation. Gopal is not correct if our frame of reference is beyond or prior to the intellect (absolute context). Here he will get an F for his presentation. Yes, no one goes about their lives in doubt about others being actual perceivers,(except those with a dissociative personality disorder, maybe). Everyone assumes the others are actual perceivers. Which is another point of contention with Gopal, because it proves that what he has realized is of no practical value, it doesn't stand the test of reality. It can only be maintained as a mental position in moments when he is detached from life and reflecting on his experience. As soon as he is fully engaged with life again, he will think, feel and act as if he never had that realization and treat everyone without exception or an inkling of doubt as if they were actual perceivers. Even in discussions where he claims that he cannot know he will at the same time treat his discussion partners as though he would know without even realizing it. That's how shallow that realization actually is. In fact, if it is that shallow, it's not worth being called a realization. Realizations have permanent real life consequences and are not limited to philosophical discussions only. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 23:01:08 GMT -5
I wouldn't call that clarity either. I'd call that common sense. Here's why: It's just common sense that in the rainy season you would take an umbrella with you. And most of the time you will be proven right. But there will also be many incidences where you take your umbrella with you and actually don't need it. And that's not worth calling clarity because it's a bit of a hit and miss and you are just playing it safe. Clarity in that (relative) context would mean having greater knowing, i.e. you know/feel on a deeper level that it is going to rain so you take your umbrella with you without even second guessing yourself or you know/feel on a deeper level that it is not going to rain and don't take your umbrella with you without a thought of worry. In one case you just feel an impulse to take your umbrella, in the other case you don't feel that impulse, but in both cases you act accordingly and it is going to work out every single time. That's clarity in the relative realm, you are guided by broader perspective and act on it. You just know. what other clarity is there apart from in the relative? If there is clarity there has to be clarity about something. Absolute clarity! Relative clarity refers to the relationship between things (objectified perception, aka something/some-thing). Absolute clarity refers to the nature of things (direct perception, aka nothing/no-thing). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 23:07:42 GMT -5
From a purely intellectual or philosophical perspective, Gopal is correct, you cannot know. You can only assume. yes gopal is correct. But in practical terms I act as though there are independently thinking conscious others. I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow but it's still an assumption. We don't go about our daily lives philosophically. Thats it. I too act as if others are perceivers. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 29, 2022 23:14:36 GMT -5
yes gopal is correct. But in practical terms I act as though there are independently thinking conscious others. I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow but it's still an assumption. We don't go about our daily lives philosophically. Thats it. I too act as if others are perceivers. Always? Why would you do that, given what you have realized? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 23:20:21 GMT -5
what other clarity is there apart from in the relative? If there is clarity there has to be clarity about something. Absolute clarity! Relative clarity refers to the relationship between things (objectified perception, aka something/some-thing). Absolute clarity refers to the nature of things (direct perception, aka nothing/no-thing). I wouldn't call that clarity. I would call it peace. That peace leads to clarity in action. Calm mind leads to clarity in action. Peace of mind + clarity in thought and action = wisdom. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 0:07:06 GMT -5
One of my posts is also gone (and one of Gopal's). Maybe the forum is glitchy, because I don't think anything was said that was inappropriate. Maybe they had been stamped to disappear. Stamping or conditioning is only for the characters. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 0:17:58 GMT -5
Thats it. I too act as if others are perceivers. Always? Why would you do that, given what you have realized? Because I don't know whether they are perceivers or figments. So I treat them as if they are perceivers. For an example you must have treated your dream characters as if they are real when you are in the dream but when you come out of your nightly dream, you know that you have actually treated the figments as if they are real. So this example proves that when you don't know whether people are figment or real, you treat them as if they are real. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 0:20:50 GMT -5
yes gopal is correct. But in practical terms I act as though there are independently thinking conscious others. I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow but it's still an assumption. We don't go about our daily lives philosophically. Gopal is only correct if the intellect is our frame of reference, the window or filter thru which we perceive the world (relative context). Here he will get an A for his presentation. Gopal is not correct if our frame of reference is beyond or prior to the intellect (absolute context). Here he will get an F for his presentation. Yes, no one goes about their lives in doubt about others being actual perceivers,(except those with a dissociative personality disorder, maybe). Everyone assumes the others are actual perceivers. Which is another point of contention with Gopal, because it proves that what he has realized is of no practical value, it doesn't stand the test of reality. It can only be maintained as a mental position in moments when he is detached from life and reflecting on his experience. As soon as he is fully engaged with life again, he will think, feel and act as if he never had that realization and treat everyone without exception or an inkling of doubt as if they were actual perceivers. Even in discussions where he claims that he cannot know he will at the same time treat his discussion partners as though he would know without even realizing it. That's how shallow that realization actually is. In fact, if it is that shallow, it's not worth being called a realization. Realizations have permanent real life consequences and are not limited to philosophical discussions only. My Seeing or realization doesn't say that other people are figments, that says that I can't know whether they are real or figment. There is a big difference. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 0:41:03 GMT -5
I wanted to check once so I went there . He exactly told everything which had happened to me. I was bit amazed. Not clear what happened here, pretty sure you replied and then I replied again, or did I imagine that happened? Or was it moved or deleted Reefs? No no I deleted it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2022 1:14:29 GMT -5
Always? Why would you do that, given what you have realized? Because I don't know whether they are perceivers or figments. So I treat them as if they are perceivers. For an example you must have treated your dream characters as if they are real when you are in the dream but when you come out of your nightly dream, you know that you have actually treated the figments as if they are real. So this example proves that when you don't know whether people are figment or real, you treat them as if they are real. Why? If they could be equally figment or perceiver, why go with perceiver? Why not go with figment? Or....the most honest position would be to treat them as if you don't know, wouldn't it? |
|
. Just mental work is needed.
